man and society are inseperable
Written by SMARTYR on Sunday, 6/2/2002
Humans are no longer natural creatures
There is a biological theory called " carrying capacity" That states that a given environment can only sustain a certain number of a certain creature. When this number is reached, competition kicks in and it's survival of the fittest. Well, the problem is that humans have taken the struggle for survival out of life, and thus we quashed carrying capacity. But to do this we have taken away from nature and overrun it ourselves. Since then we have had the problem of ruling ourselves instead of nature, and to be frank we have done a piss poor job in doing this. I don't think we will ever be able to create a perfect, non corrupt ruling body. you can't say that it's " human nature" to be corrupt, because there is really no such tnings. humans have put themselves above nature in a way and thus humans are no longer a creation of nature, they are a creation of society.
All of my thoughts on this started from an email with hammond, posted below. I wouldnít expect you to read it all, although it is some really profound things in there. I tried t highlight the best parts but I didnít get them all. I will summarize it all now, but reall encourage you to read the whole thing
Thatís were I got cut off. But it is still pretty profound We didnít really solve the problems of the world, we basically came to theses conclusions.
Philosophers and the enlightened thinkers of th 18th century based everything of 2 theories. 1 that man is corrupt in nature and needs a government to curb the evil, and 2 that man is good in nature and is corrupted by society. We basically decided between oursleves that this point is moot, because now that society is intact and we know the evils of what we are capable we canít go back to anarchy. And now that man is essentially taken out of nature, we can no longer revert to our natural state thus making the question moot.In the long run, NO CREATURE CAN EVER REVERT BACK TO ITS NATURAL STATE AFTER MVING OUT OF NATURE, THAT IS WHEN SOCIETY TAKES OVER THE ROLE ONCE PLAYED BY NATURE, AND FROM THERE THE TWO ARE INSEPERABLE
We also asked the question, if you took a baby human and took society out of the question and fed it through a hole in the wall what would happen. We never actually answered that.
This was by far the most intelligent conversation I have ever had with anyone. Period. It was so refreshing and relieving, and I still go back to it from time to time, sometimes to refresh those thoughts in my head and sometimes just to remind myself that there is intelligent life out there.
Smartyr: You know what is really kinda sad........ the capitolist
democracy is the best government ever to be put into practice..........
isnt' that just pathetic, we, the most intelligent species on the planet
have utter control over the world and this is the best we can do?
Xec96x: It's not the best we can do, it's the best THEY can do
Smartyr: It's the best that our specie has ever done
Xec96x: Hmm.. what about those hippie communes?
Xec96x: And Canada is a democratic socialist country
Smartyr: not any more than we are, except for in healthcare
Smartyr: they are capitolist
Xec96x: Yes but the people of Canada is not so corrupt
Smartyr: true but that doesn't make them socialist
Smartyr: socialism has its flaws anyways
Xec96x: I admit my ignorance of the Canadian government, but I think I
heard that the gov. mandates wages
Xec96x: Definitely... too much control to government
Xec96x: Very similar to 1984
Smartyr: I don't think the government mandates wages anyomore then we
Xec96x: Well, perhaps. I don't know.
Smartyr: Do you lok at communism as a form of government or a form of
Xec96x: Really, it's neither.. it's a theory about people working
together. In every situation where it has been practiced(exept native
american tribes and hippie communes) it usually ends up in socialism,
very different in the true sense of communism
Smartyr: The biggest reason it has turns into socialism is becuase
in the final stage of communism goverment is abolished, and it would
take far too long for that to happen because in the beginning a
communist government need too much
the biggest flaw in communism is the people don't have enough control.
They aren't allowed any pleasures, it almost disallows happiness in an
extremist's sense. If you want to have a day job but want to work on
cars, there is no way for you to do that because it is an expensive hobby
Smartyr: power to function properly, and will inevitably be
corrupted , it would have to flash into anarchy which wouldn't work
Xec96x: I believe that the number of problems a country has is directly
proportional to the number of people in it
Smartyr: that last part goes after too much
Xec96x: The only way communism would work is to start small
Smartyr: but you can't start too small, hippy communes failed for
Smartyr: you'd also need a pre set economy now that we have all this
Xec96x: It's got to be big enough to support all the functions that the
Xec96x: First off, I'd abolish wealth and currency
Smartyr: and to be able to allow people to pursue hapiness
Smartyr: that's communism's other main flaw it doesn't allow too much
for the pursuit of hapiness
Smartyr: again I make an analogy to my car. You need to have someone
who makes the car parts and then every other hobbies, guitars,
computers, things that people enjoy doing outside of their jobs
Xec96x: Yeah, I was thinking that myself. You are kind of limited to the
number of resources, so you can't really do anything you want. Like if I
want to work with computers, where am I going to get a computer? I can't
build one from complete scratch
Xec96x: I don't believe in a government. There really aren't any 'laws',
only unofficial guidelines, and if you break them, some guys are going
to punish you. But in reality, there is no physical barrier preventing
you from doing things
Xec96x: Essentially, the government is only the most popular people with
the biggest guns. Everyone has to listen to THEM.
Xec96x: Because a government can't 'own' land.
Smartyr: and that should be a premise of capitalism, the governmnet
can't own jack shit
Smartyr: Even roads. Think of that. If someone owned the roads, and
charged you to drive on them
Smartyr: taxes should be for nothing more that the operating expenses
of the government
Smartyr: and the mail
Smartyr: but then it can get out hand, monoplies and such could ruin
everything, althought he government certainly can regulate that. But
then that might be too involved
Smartyr: I guess the question there is should the gov. have total,
some or no control over the economy
Xec96x: That's the only thing that I am not totally convinced over. I
can see both sides of the arguement
Xec96x: In theory, no control would be the best, but that's if everyone
didn't try to screw each other.
Xec96x: Or not everyone, even if MOST people didn't try to screw everyone
Smartyr: that and the other question I asked earlier,at what point do
humans become corrupt, naturally or due to society
Xec96x: Let's define corrupt
Xec96x: Didn't pursue a lifestyle that makes other people suffer
Xec96x: Or, corrupt = the pursuit of a lifestyle that makes other living
Smartyr: corrutp= abuse of power essentially, abusing power in order
to further your own life
Xec96x: I'm not against furthering your own life
Xec96x: But clarify 'abuse of power'
Xec96x: With my definition, I went to the most basic elements
Smartyr: but abusing power to do so, meaning taking any form of power
bestowed upon you and expoilting it
Xec96x: define 'exploiting'.. where do you draw the line in 'exploiting'
Smartyr: using it in ways that it isn't meant to be used, abusing
power I guess,
Xec96x: I say making people suffer
Smartyr: I think that;s it.... abuse of power
Xec96x: If you abuse your power, but no one suffers, then there isn't a
Smartyr: but give me a scenario that applys to
Xec96x: I can't think of one but 'abuse of power' can be interpreted in
so many different ways
Xec96x: So we can simplify it by saying 'making people suffer'
Smartyr: Where do you draw the line of suffering
Xec96x: When you make people feel bad, in the eyes of people
Smartyr: when it causes pain in others,
Smartyr: but that isn't always right, if you do something wrong but
you don't get caught is it still wrong?
Xec96x: define 'wrong'
Xec96x: and what is it that is done
Smartyr: so is bill gates wrong for creating a monoply
Smartyr: or standard oil if you wanna take it back a few years
Xec96x: they cause pain in others
Smartyr: your too bogged down with definitions
Xec96x: well, everyone has their own idea of what 'wrong' is
Smartyr: you try to define everything to narrowly, there needs to be
some interepertation in here
Smartyr: in your definition
Smartyr: it gets annoying any time I try and make a point you just
ask for definitions.
Xec96x: yes but we can have different ideas of what 'wrong' is.. and
even though we have the same philosophy of what 'corrupt' is, we have
different ideas of what 'wrong' is
Xec96x: So in effect our ideas of what corruption is differ
Smartyr: wrong I suppose again is when your actions ultimately hurt
Xec96x: Then we agree
Smartyr: but then is stealng from mammoth corporations wrong, is it
bad to steal from the greedy and rich.
Smartyr: the age old question of is it wrong to steal from the rich to
feed your family
Xec96x: If we steal from them, they'd probably suffer
Xec96x: Ten minutes ago, I'd say no it's not
Xec96x: But then they would suffer, in their eyes
Xec96x: Even though you think that they wouldn't
Smartyr: because then it isn't really hurting anyone really
Xec96x: But if they feel bad, is that still wrong?
Xec96x: Okay, if I smoke pot, and my neighbors feel bad about it, am I
really hurting someone?
Xec96x: (my neighbors)
Smartyr: but if every hungry person on the planet stole food from the
exceedingly wealthy then the wealth the wealthy had built up would be no
Xec96x: Hmm, I got it
Xec96x: Net happiness
Smartyr: I think "feel bad is too broad" if it has a negative impact
on their life then I would agree
Xec96x: If I make a lot of people happy by making one person suffer, is
Smartyr: ahh do the ends justify the means
Xec96x: Like, one big rich guy and forty starving people
Xec96x: If I steal money, let's say a lot, and give it to feed the
Smartyr: and is that then corrupt, abuse of power
Xec96x: The rich guy loses about half his wealth - he's still very
wealthy, but not as wealthy as he was before.
Xec96x: So he is unhappy
Xec96x: But then the forty starving people are happy
Smartyr: but then it didn't negatively impact his life
Smartyr: he might be bummed but only his ego took the blow
Smartyr: so I think maybe not
Xec96x: He won't be able to spend insane amounts of money on his many
luxieries.. is it justified?
Xec96x: Okay, what's worse, his ego taking a blow or forty people dying
Smartyr: the people obviously
Smartyr: but then when is it too much? when have you taken too much
Xec96x: Okay, let's go one step further
Xec96x: If we have to KILL the rich guy to save the forty starving
Smartyr: It obviously isn't right to take till it negatively impacts
his life but then where again do you draw the lines
Smartyr: placing a value on human life......
Smartyr: back to my previous statement, can a governement mandate to
what extent we take the rich guys money
Xec96x: Where does the money go?
Smartyr: how would we determine this in a governmental setting.......
you have a ton of differetn ways
Smartyr: to feed the hungry
Xec96x: Then I say yes, distrubute the wealth, it makes the most amount
of people happy
Xec96x: You know what? Fuck money
Smartyr: but then the governement wants compensation for it's time and
Xec96x: In my society, we wouldn't have currency
Xec96x: At the VERY LEAST everyone should be fed
Xec96x: Then from then on, people have the ability to live however they
Xec96x: No control over anything
Smartyr: well then in a capitalist society without currency, how
rich should one person be ALLOWED to become
Xec96x: By 'rich' you mean have the most posessions?
Xec96x: I don't think there should be a limit
Smartyr: and again who sets those boundaries?
Xec96x: That's one of the problems
Smartyr: okay so then where do the starving people get food?
Xec96x: First off, who will be living in this theoretical society?
Xec96x: Good people, or let's say the average americans?
Smartyr: everyone, you can't be a selective society
Xec96x: So potentially we can have a bunch of assholes
Smartyr: and lazy unskilled schmucks
Smartyr: do they deserve to be fed if they aren't willing to work
Xec96x: The only thing the government should provide is food
Smartyr: but then who works to make the food, and how do they get
Xec96x: You realize that the more rules we have, the further we are from
Smartyr: the government splits up the cost to produce food equally
among the civillians as a tax?
Smartyr: that's the only way
Smartyr: but then how do you tax without currency
Xec96x: No taxes
Xec96x: There has got to be another way
Smartyr: but then how do you feed everyone?
Xec96x: I'm thinking
Smartyr: how do you compensate the farmers?
Xec96x: hmm.. I suppose 'virtue is it's own reward' simply won't cut
Smartyr: although maybe you then have the people who can't feed
themselves on a work farm?
Smartyr: you can count on SOME charity
Xec96x: Not enough
Xec96x: There are farmers, and they have to be compensated
Smartyr: enough to get them started mybe
Xec96x: We can't take their food if they farm it
Xec96x: That's like you building ten cars and then taking eight
Smartyr: maybe a non manditory type of tax
Smartyr: but then will it ever be enough
Xec96x: I think so, if it's completely voluntary
Xec96x: You know?
Smartyr: do people who lack the skills to feed themselves deserve to
Xec96x: I truly think anarchy is the way to go. Every program to ensure
justice(like food) will be completely unofficial
Smartyr: and then what about the handicapped? is the society
responsible for their care even if it isn't their fault?
Xec96x: In fact..
Xec96x: We already live in an anarchic society.
Xec96x: There aren't any rules
Xec96x: It's just that there are a bunch of people who punish you if you
break THEIR rules
Xec96x: And there are different bunches of people... countries
Xec96x: Each with their own 'rules'
Smartyr: okay so what about a penal code then..... where do you draw
Xec96x: penal code?
Smartyr: system of punishment
Xec96x: Up to the individual
Smartyr: so the family can carry out it's vengence
Xec96x: I think that will ultimately work
Smartyr: and if someone shoud get rich and obtain the ability to make
atomic bombs, he can then get away with it
Xec96x: I don't think people will be able to get the power to do such a
thing.. no scientists will put up with it
Xec96x: I think that naturally people are good
Xec96x: Sure, everyone wants to make their lives better, but nobody
wants to make people miserable
Smartyr: but not after our society, I think we have become too
advanced for that
Smartyr: and that isn't true, there are unscrupulous people who will
crawl over their own mother for what they want
Xec96x: It all starts with childhood
Xec96x: At early ages, babies are very, very impressionable
Xec96x: They adapt to whatever society they're in
Smartyr: so no one is accountable for their actions even if the
victim can't defend themselves
Smartyr: like bullying on a bigger scale
Xec96x: I know what you're saying
Xec96x: I wonder what will happen if someone puts a baby in a room, and
only puts food in the room every so often, and cleans up the crap and
piss... and if that baby grows up in the room and is released in twenty
Smartyr: right and our society corrupts that. But now the whole
world over has been corrupted to a point. They know it can happen and
that people will do it, and now that they know itís what's to stop them
from doing it
Smartyr: he would be an animal
Xec96x: But aren't we all animals?
Smartyr: yes but he would be incredibly dumb, He would basically be
retarded. He would not be responsible for his own survival and will be
Xec96x: So in reality the society we live in is determined by our
environment we grow up in
Smartyr: so you can't go back from where we are now. The whole world
knows the darkest potential of the human beast.
Xec96x: If I were to take a baby in seclusion and take care of it, and
only teach him certain things, and essentially completely disconnect him
from society, what would he grow up like
Smartyr: you can't revert to anarchy, you have to go forward
Smartyr: in what kind of a setting? a natural one or a
Smartyr: well it could only be in nature
Xec96x: completely isolate him. In a room.
Smartyr: and you would have little more than time to teach it how to
survive in nature
Smartyr: with no outside influences
Smartyr: or what if you took one and taught it only good and another
Xec96x: I wonder what would happen if you take THREE babies and stick em
in a room, periodically putting food in and cleaning crap
Smartyr: but that kind of defeats the purpose here
Xec96x: How would they interact? Would they develop their own method of
communication? Would they work together?
Smartyr: what if you put them in an isolated environment where they
had to learn to survive
Smartyr: they would have no need to because their basic needs are
taken care of they would grow lazy and slothful
Smartyr: need to work together or interact
Xec96x: But what would happen? What would they do, nothing for 24 hours
straight, except periodically eating and shitting?
Smartyr: I asked that question earlier, are people by nature good and
corrupted by society, or less than society, each other and the need to
interact, or do you need society to curb the " natural" bad in humanity
Xec96x: I think we need to find out
Smartyr: but how?
Xec96x: How much do three babies cost on the black market?
Smartyr: there are too many variables
Xec96x: Yes, there are
Xec96x: Maybe we can have like ten different sets of babies
Xec96x: Ten different societies
Smartyr: and you need to make them responsible for their survival
without leaving any impressions on them
Xec96x: Like a slot for food, and a hole in the floor for crap?
Smartyr: otherwise as I say it is not a natural state
Smartyr: it would be no different than feeding rats in a cage
Smartyr: but then not all animals are the same are they
Xec96x: It couldn't possibly be natural...
Smartyr: some animals fight in t he presence of other while others get
Xec96x: They would grow up, thinking that food falls from a slot in the
Smartyr: and the larger the scale the more different you'lll find.
Some animals of the same species will attack each other and other
Xec96x: It would be an interesting experiment
Smartyr: so then is "meanness" or evil natural
Smartyr: but then if you do that in cages is that not a result of the
un-naturalness of the food giving. If you take a baby away from it's
mother it will not survive. It needs to be taught how to survive
Xec96x: So you think they will die if they aren't taught how to feed
Smartyr: or if they aren't directly feed at first
Smartyr: then you must account for instincts
Xec96x: It would be an interesting experiment
Xec96x: One thing to consider
Xec96x: If they all die
Xec96x: They won't know the meaning of pain
Xec96x: They won't suffer
Smartyr: I think in the long run it is an individual basis.
Smartyr: There is some ill will in nature which in turn is taught to
other things that will resort to it
Smartyr: or it corrupts
Smartyr: so therefore society is necessary
Smartyr: but in nature the evil and good balnaces out, does it not?
Smartyr: but again I think it is too late
Xec96x: Fuck everything. I do what I feel like.
Smartyr: this is pointless questioning. We can't revert the entire
species back to nature
Smartyr: The human beast is the first creature in history to take
itself away from nature
Smartyr: we are not entirely at natures mercy
Xec96x: Well, it's obvious that we are not natural
Smartyr: and we can't go back
Smartyr: but was that coming away from nature good or bad
Smartyr: man learned way back when that he could exploit nature
Smartyr: the first example was farming
Xec96x: actually we didn't start with agriculture
Xec96x: We were nomadic
Smartyr: So then he didn't entirely need to be hunting or gahtering
berries all the time so he could sit and develop thought betweeen meals
Smartyr: I know and that's what I am going off of
Smartyr: and was that good or bad
Smartyr: If you take an animal and take nature out of the equation
for generations upon generation, will that be good or bad, the longer
you leave them out of nature the more they will be able to think
Smartyr: Man was the first animal with that capability and look were
we are a million years or so later
Xec96x: I read about that somewhere
Smartyr: we have forsaken and raped nature
Xec96x: At one time when we had to search for food, there was no time to
Xec96x: When we found sources of food, we had time to think between meals
Smartyr: if a different species had obtained that ability first would
they be different
Smartyr: I think the key here is to work with what we have
Xec96x: They would have to develop the ability to develop food faster
then they can eat it
Smartyr: which we did
Smartyr: they built up surpluses
Smartyr: It is enthralling to sit here for hours but in the end we
only know what could have been
Smartyr: and if they did what would the huamns do?
Smartyr: here is what we know..... Man has taken nature for the most
part out of the equation
Xec96x: there are too many variables, so many different things could
Smartyr: we will never be able to completely be rid of nature, we
Need. it but we don't have to obey it
Smartyr: but now that we have taken ourselves out of it, we can't go
back into it if we wanted to
Smartyr: so there for the question of is human corrupted by nature is
Smartyr: that's actually pretty profound
Smartyr: philosophers have wondered and speculated about that for years